Court of Appeals Affirms Decision Finding Injury Arose In the Course of Employment
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Plummer, No. 14-0417 (Iowa App. Jan. 28, 2015), the court addressed an issue involving an employee who was admittedly off the clock when he suffered his injury, but who was assisting customers at the store at which he worked. On the date of the injury, claimant had completed his shift clocked out and was shopping at the store. When he was leaving, he and a co-worked assisted a customer. While providing assistance, claimant slipped and fell. He subsequently completed an incident report designed for customers rather than employees.
The deputy concluded that because claimant was no longer on the clock, the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. On appeal, the court indicates that the commissioner did not specifically address the "off the clock" finding, but examined the causal connection between the fall and the subsequent medical treatment. The commissioner found that the visit to the physician four days after the fall was causally related to the fall, but found no causal connection with the back surgery claimant had seven weeks later. The commissioner ordered Wal-Mart to covered the medical expenses associated with the physician's visit, and nothing more.
The court found that the "in the course of employment" aspect of the law was at issue. The court also concluded that substantial evidence, and indeed all the evidence, was that claimant was off the clock, but that he was assisting a customer when he had his injury. The court concluded that the commissioner implicitly determined the "in the course of" requirement had been satisfied, by ordering medical care for claimant. The court concluded that the determination of the commissioner was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable. Citing Bailey v. Batchelder, 576 N.W.2d 334, 340 (Iowa 1998), a case in which benefits were awarded when claimant was injured while in the parking lot 50 minutes before her, the court concluded that claimant here had only been off work a short period of time, and "essentially acted as an employee when he stopped to assist a customer." The court concluded that the commissioner could reasonably have rejected Wal-Mart's defense under these circumstances.
Claimant also suffered a separate injury on July 17, 2010, when he was attempting to remove a broken pad on a floor scrubber when he felt a pop in his back. The agency concluded that claimant had a 20% industrial disability as a result of this injury, despite surveillance video. The court affirmed the 20% award, based on substantial evidence.
A final issue involved sanctions and two applications for alternate medical care. As a part of the second application, the employer was ordered to refer claimant to a spine expert for treatment and evaluation. Wal-Mart failed to do this, and claimant challenged Wal-Mart's failure to comply. The commissioner concluded that Wal-Mart was denying prompt care "while shopping for opinions more agreeable to the defense than those of other physicians" and imposed sanctions of $242.82. The court found it was bound to give deference to the commissioner's decision on sanctions matters, citing Marovec v. PMX Indus., 693 N.W.2d 779, 783-84 (Iowa 2005). The rejected Wal-Mart's attempt to distinguish evaluation from treatment, and affirmed the sanctions awarded.
The deputy concluded that because claimant was no longer on the clock, the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. On appeal, the court indicates that the commissioner did not specifically address the "off the clock" finding, but examined the causal connection between the fall and the subsequent medical treatment. The commissioner found that the visit to the physician four days after the fall was causally related to the fall, but found no causal connection with the back surgery claimant had seven weeks later. The commissioner ordered Wal-Mart to covered the medical expenses associated with the physician's visit, and nothing more.
The court found that the "in the course of employment" aspect of the law was at issue. The court also concluded that substantial evidence, and indeed all the evidence, was that claimant was off the clock, but that he was assisting a customer when he had his injury. The court concluded that the commissioner implicitly determined the "in the course of" requirement had been satisfied, by ordering medical care for claimant. The court concluded that the determination of the commissioner was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable. Citing Bailey v. Batchelder, 576 N.W.2d 334, 340 (Iowa 1998), a case in which benefits were awarded when claimant was injured while in the parking lot 50 minutes before her, the court concluded that claimant here had only been off work a short period of time, and "essentially acted as an employee when he stopped to assist a customer." The court concluded that the commissioner could reasonably have rejected Wal-Mart's defense under these circumstances.
Claimant also suffered a separate injury on July 17, 2010, when he was attempting to remove a broken pad on a floor scrubber when he felt a pop in his back. The agency concluded that claimant had a 20% industrial disability as a result of this injury, despite surveillance video. The court affirmed the 20% award, based on substantial evidence.
A final issue involved sanctions and two applications for alternate medical care. As a part of the second application, the employer was ordered to refer claimant to a spine expert for treatment and evaluation. Wal-Mart failed to do this, and claimant challenged Wal-Mart's failure to comply. The commissioner concluded that Wal-Mart was denying prompt care "while shopping for opinions more agreeable to the defense than those of other physicians" and imposed sanctions of $242.82. The court found it was bound to give deference to the commissioner's decision on sanctions matters, citing Marovec v. PMX Indus., 693 N.W.2d 779, 783-84 (Iowa 2005). The rejected Wal-Mart's attempt to distinguish evaluation from treatment, and affirmed the sanctions awarded.
Comments
Post a Comment